Saturday, January 12, 2013

With Raines’ vote total rising, the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association are either forgetting or ignoring that Raines admitted in 1982 and in subsequent years that he used cocaine.

At one of the drug trials in Pittsburgh in 1985, Raines testified that he kept cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants during games and that when he had to slide, he slid headfirst to make sure he didn’t break the glass vial in which he kept the illegal drug.That was Raines himself saying that – on the witness stand under oath in a federal court room. ...

But if a voter follows the BBWAA rules in regard to steroids, he should realize they also pertain to drugs such as cocaine.

“Voting,” reads rule No. 5, “shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

”Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines. ...

My favorite, Jack Morris, did not benefit from the absence of surefire first-timers on the ballot. With four fewer ballots cast, the pitcher gained three votes and only 1 percent to 67.7. Next year he could suffer with the addition of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to the ballot, or he could benefit if the voters say let’s put all the good pitchers in.

Most likely, he will join Gil Hodges as the only players who gained more than 60 percent of the vote three times and were not elected.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

If it rained cocaine, I def would have stayed home from work that day.

Look, whatever you think about the level of proof as to any given supposed "juicer," the fact is that the game turned for a period of years into a public celebration of drug abuse. The voters' instincts to hold some responsible for that are understandable. That's leagues apart from Tim Raines's personal failings. I'd have to have to answer questions about the idiotic things I've done.

Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines. ...

I don't really get this. Is there any question that when a voter decides not to vote for a user, that they are doing it under the character clause? How you could you not?

The 90s were an extremely complicated decade of baseball, there's a good chance they could wind up being the most complicated decade of baseball in my lifetime. It was the heyday of the troll sports columnist. Had massive labor strife, the types of stadiums the games were being played in changed dramatically. Four expansion teams were added, playoffs were expanded such that a 2nd place team could make it for the first time. There's some speculation the ball was tinkered with around 1993 (either deliberately or accidentally). Steroids or not, the physical conditioning of players was for the first time prioritized throughout the league. And then finally, dead in the middle was the dot com boom which would obviously change the way the sport was followed forever.

I resent it being called the "steroids era" because there was simply so much more to it than that (and even limited to the explosion of offense and home runs it's pretty clear there was more to it than that). The players who thrived in the era should be dealt with on that era's own terms. Guys like Bagwell and Piazza don't deserve this under any circumstances, and probably neither do Bonds and Clemens.

I see that Paul Molitor has been mentioned on this thread already. Did Chass vote for Molitor for the HoF?

My take on the association of Raines and cocaine: it's something he did when he was still quite young. Then he got clean, and stayed clean, and had his best years after he had reformed himself. All of which makes what Chass wrote a grotesque and undeserved insult.

I assume he also makes no mention of Jenkins who was actually arrested for possession, although I think it was all expunged under a "you do so much for the community already, we'll let this one slide" moment.

the fact is that the game turned for a period of years into a public celebration of drug abuse.

Putting aside whether use of roids for performance constitutes "abuse", the 70s and 80s were a public celebration of drug abuse in baseball (and most other sports). Jenkins, Molitor, Raines, Parker, Hernandez, Howe and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. HoFer Orlando Cepeda served 10 months in prison for marijuana possession (as in pounds) in the late 70s. And of course all the amps swept under the rug. The Pittsburgh trial was possibly baseball's biggest black eye since the Black Sox (well, except for the continuing ban of black players until Robinson).

I couldn't care less about recreational drug use by strangers but I'm more worried about folks abusing coke than I am about them abusing steroids.

All of which makes what Chass wrote a grotesque and undeserved insult.

Yep.

Is there any question that when a voter decides not to vote for a user, that they are doing it under the character clause?

Chances are all Chass is upset about is that voters aren't understanding that "obviously" the character clause applies to all moral failings. There's some chance he's implying that voters aren't really invoking the character clause as much as taking revenge on B/C, etc while being happy to ignore other moral failings.

But, yeah, anybody who voted Raines but not B/C will simply say the character clause only refers to moral failings withing baseball. Idelson said pretty much the same thing just the other day.

And I certainly hope Morris never used greenies.

IIRC Chass was still at the Times and not permitted to vote

I thought this was a reasonably recent stance of the Times. But, if so, he doesn't seem to have written about it, so I'm guessing you're right.

Putting aside whether use of roids for performance constitutes "abuse",

Let's not. Using steroids to treat breast cancer is ok. Using them to hit a baseball further is abuse.

the 70s and 80s were a public celebration of drug abuse in baseball (and most other sports). Jenkins, Molitor, Raines, Parker, Hernandez, Howe and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. HoFer Orlando Cepeda served 10 months in prison for marijuana possession (as in pounds) in the late 70s. And of course all the amps swept under the rug. The Pittsburgh trial was possibly baseball's biggest black eye since the Black Sox (well, except for the continuing ban of black players until Robinson).

I'm not sure how this constitutes a "public celebration of drug abuse in baseball," and I suspect you understand the difference.

Using steroids to treat breast cancer is ok. Using them to hit a baseball further is abuse.

No it's not necessarily abuse. It's outside of medical protocol, even illegal. But the health effects for the user are murky and generally pretty trivial and there are no follow-on effects to friends or family members.

The term "abuse" was of course cooked up precisely to put illegal drugs in the worst possible light. It's not exactly hard to build the argument that the use of steroids to make millions of dollars at little risk to your own health and none to others is perfectly rational ... especially at a time when it wasn't against the rules.

The linking of recreational drug use to "abuse" is sketchy enough, there's even less a connection for steroids.

I'm not sure how this constitutes a "public celebration of drug abuse in baseball," and I suspect you understand the difference.

No, I don't. Supposedly one of the big problems with roids in baseball is that successful players used roids, setting a bad example for kids (and other players). Famous players using cocaine and not being punished for it* sends the same message.

*Kuhn tried to punish Howe. Once the trial hit there were some short suspensions if memory serves. The Pittsburgh trial was the BALCO moment, not the beginning of coke in baseball.

Oh yeah, I forgot about all the Royals.

And there was no public celebration of roids. Baseball's approach to amps was to completely ignore it and hope the media did the same. Baseball's approach to coke was to completely ignore it and hope the media did the same until players started gettting arrested. Baseball's approach to steroids was to completely ignore it and hope the media did the same which is pretty much what was going on until BALCO and Congress. All the while, the achievements of its most famous players were celebrated. There was no difference except in the reactions of Congress, eventually the media and the public.

I have yet to find a study that says someone would play better while using cocaine (well, maybe using to calm an addictive episode would help. In using steroids you were actually trying to improve your play, your team's results and add to the enjoyment of the fans.

So, by this blogger's logic, Babe Ruth is unworthy of the Baseball Hall of Fame, as is every other baseball player who had a drink during the time that doing so was illegal in the USA

Your favorite -- what, Murray. Your favorite candidate? Your favorite player? Here Murray is openly admitting that objectivity is gone, and that Jack Morris is essentially his pet vote. At this point, he is voting for Jack not out of belief that he is qualified, but because Jack is his "favorite," a pet of his whom he votes for out of spite for those of us who think him unqualified for the HOF. That is really not something one should endorse. Murray Chass is a bitter, petty, and more than anything, a childish man. I find this behavior to be puerile and unbecoming of a HOF voter. A HOF voter should not have "favorites" whom he votes for out of boyish idolatry, but should be able to assess the candidates reasonably and rationally.

How long, I wonder, has Chass's infatuation with Morris existed? Has he championed Morris since the 80's, or has the rejection of Morris to the HOF simply caused him to dig in his heels to these absurd and rabid levels?

Best part of the article is that it starts off with Tim Raines as the central piece, but by about the halfway point there is no more mention of Tim Raines, and by the end we've forgotten that Tim Raines was ever a part of the story...classic Murray Chass.

Each award recipient (not to be confused with an inductee) is presented with a calligraphy of the award and is recognized in the "Scribes & Mikemen" exhibit in the Library of the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams. It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.

It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.

Yes, because clearly post #35 was said before a subcommittee of Congress and wasn't simply internet snark. We're all jealous that Chass, a blogger, writes in his basement while we all to suffer the embarrassments of writing from our mother's basement.

I have yet to find a study that says someone would play better while using cocaine (well, maybe using to calm an addictive episode would help. In using steroids you were actually trying to improve your play, your team's results and add to the enjoyment of the fans.

And that's why people are likely drawing the distinction and treating steroids as an absolute disqualifier. Those who used steroids were using it to gain an unsportsmanlike competitive advantage on the field; those who were using cocaine, in all probability, weren't.

Using an illegal drug isn't by itself a sportsmanship issue; it's when that illegal drug is being used with the intent of improving on-field performance that it becomes one.

I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams.

Interesting. And how many of the no votes for Bonds and Clemens are due to simple jealousy? Is it "SOME"?

I'm critical of people doing their jobs poorly. Not that people doing their jobs poorly is a rare phenomenon in our society. But seeing so many of the writers perform poorly, then bristle at the suggestion that they've performed poorly, and then attempt to sell the narrative that they're actually performing so excellently as to counteract past errors by others... this is a special era for the BBWAA.

At least when a pro wrestler combines anger, arrogance, self-delusion and comic revisionism, there's a chance he's going to be hit with a folding ladder.

Right. But it is a character issue. Which is why one reasonable thing that Chass does here is to speak about "invoking the 'integrity, sportsmanship, character' clause." There is no "character clause" -- character is just one word in the clause. Of course, one could argue that these are three independent criteria, but it is perfectly logical to view integrity, sportsmanship, and character collectively.

I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams. It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.

you might be correct about some of what you perceive as group think here at BTF, but i just want to say that my general dislike of sportswriters also stems from knowing some after having worked at a couple of metro dailies. most of them are for the most part good journalists and know how to get a story and line up their sources and get a good quote. that's what reporters are supposed to do. but almost all of them had questionable critical thinking skills when it came to analyzing the game. they really are averse to sabermetrics; they want to keep things simple, so they avoid nuance. once they start writing a column, its depressing to see the head in the sand mentality take over ... i had more than one frustrating conversation with various writers for the sports departments about such things as advanced metrics, steroids, pitcher usage, etc. ... and i'm no wonk. one of the veteran writers once actually told me that sabermetrics 'takes out the human factor' of the game; it was obvious he bought in to the mom's basement stereotype. after a while, i could see there was no use trying to engage.

sports journalism is a funny thing. there are journalistic standards applied to actual news events in the sports world, but otherwise its about selling newspapers or making ratings, so the rest of the writing/reporting that goes on is some sort of pander to the lowest common denominator.

some pretty sharp people read and post here, so its not surprising that a lot of sportswriters come in for grief on this site. its too bad those writers don't read some of the threads, because i think they might come away from the discussions with some helpful insights. of course, they might read some comments and feel justified in hand waving BTF. its their loss.

I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams. It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.

And I would submit that SOME of the vitriol from sportswriters to steroid user is because they feel guilty for flat out failing to mention anything about steroids when they were rampant in the game. And by SOME, I mean a #### load.

"i just want to say that my general dislike of sportswriters also stems from knowing some after having worked at a couple of metro dailies. most of them are for the most part good journalists and know how to get a story and line up their sources and get a good quote. that's what reporters are supposed to do. but almost all of them had questionable critical thinking skills when it came to analyzing the game. they really are averse to sabermetrics;"

WAY too nuanced. needs something like "all journalists only work in that field because they weren't good enough to do anything else."

lose the "almost all" - don't hedge!

real life examples - even in a small sample size - also frowned upon.

someone here didn't get a broad enough brush under the tree at Christmas....

Which is why one reasonable thing that Chass does here is to speak about "invoking the 'integrity, sportsmanship, character' clause." There is no "character clause" -- character is just one word in the clause. Of course, one could argue that these are three independent criteria, but it is perfectly logical to view integrity, sportsmanship, and character collectively.

Well, the point I was making is that even if you do give weight to integrity/sportsmanship/character as a unit, you still can vote for Raines and not for Bonds or Clemens.

Raines
1. used illegal drugs (bad character), BUT
2. not to gain a performance advantage (so not bad sportsmanship), AND
3. admitted to it and cleaned up his act (showing integrity and less-bad character)

I doubt that any Raines yes, Bonds/Clemens no voter is taking that nuanced a stance, obviously - but it's not necessarily the case that the voter isn't applying the same rules to all three players.

Well, the point I was making is that even if you do give weight to integrity/sportsmanship/character as a unit, you still can vote for Raines and not for Bonds or Clemens.

I wasn't disagreeing with that. The point I was making is that you almost have to view character as an independent (dis)qualification for it to be the basis for excluding Raines (or Cepeda or Jenkins or Molitor etc etc). As you note, it's much harder to carry that argument if integrity/character/sportsmanship is viewed as a unit.

I doubt that any Raines yes, Bonds/Clemens no voter is taking that nuanced a stance, obviously - but it's not necessarily the case that the voter isn't applying the same rules to all three players.

Actually, I think it's at least possible that there is a Raines yes, Bonds/Clemens no voter or three who is taking exactly that stance, but I also don't doubt that there are many voters who are applying the rules inconsistently.

WAY too nuanced. needs something like "all journalists only work in that field because they weren't good enough to do anything else."

lose the "almost all" - don't hedge!

real life examples - even in a small sample size - also frowned upon.

someone here didn't get a broad enough brush under the tree at Christmas....

heh.

hey now. if you've ever seen any of my artwork that's been posted here, you'll know that i use brushes of all sizes!

funny thing about journalists and newsrooms. it took me a while to realize this, but a newsroom, especially at a large newspaper, is filled wall to wall with the smartest geeks in their high school or college j-school class, especially on the news desks and the copy editors section. not necessarily the most worldly successful students, mind you. just a lot of people with a lot of smarts.